tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post3759206792024729774..comments2024-03-21T19:08:05.737-07:00Comments on Genealogy's Star: Sharing Data Files or What Happened to GEDCOM?James Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-44627246422275501792013-08-26T07:11:23.963-07:002013-08-26T07:11:23.963-07:00A very different perspective: http://parallax-view...A very different perspective: http://parallax-viewpoint.blogspot.ie/2013/08/are-we-modelling-data-or-commerce.html.Tony Proctorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330460400737261264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-46491776496654239602013-08-22T23:33:22.085-07:002013-08-22T23:33:22.085-07:00Thank you and your commentors for stating this pro...Thank you and your commentors for stating this problem so succinctly. I can stop repeating to myself "maybe it's just me but..." <br /><br />So are there no programs that will import the links between facts, sources etc and media? Or does it also depend on the program that created the GEDCOM? Family Tree Maker for Mac 2 does not include media links at all. FTM2012 does, but they do not link to any particular event in the other software I have tried, so you have to relink them manually, as you described in your scenario. I had grumbled that they probably made it this way on purpose, so that it's too difficult for you to leave. After reading the comments I think I was closer to the truth than I realized. This really is another kind of genealogy brick wall. miZ_mdkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12466572146123689683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-35137605943002630022013-08-03T19:11:54.308-07:002013-08-03T19:11:54.308-07:00It might work that way if the developers were will...It might work that way if the developers were willing to share their "database details" but that seems highly unlikely. Thanks for the comment.James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-80064560829970055212013-08-03T10:14:13.168-07:002013-08-03T10:14:13.168-07:00What we need is some middleware to sit between 2 n...What we need is some middleware to sit between 2 non-standard databases to do a 2 way data transfer. This is done in large institutions (I know as I used to work for one) both live day to day and also as a migration exercise.<br /><br />Possibly a better way would be for individual FH applications to share their proprietary database details and then someone could develop a suitable migration engine. This could be updated as necessary when new versions of the FH applications appear and could even cope with Gedcoms and broken PAF exports. Colinhttp://le-fever.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-6688129314451232092013-08-02T19:37:29.226-07:002013-08-02T19:37:29.226-07:00Thanks Drew, Perhaps this might be explained on th...Thanks Drew, Perhaps this might be explained on the BetterGEDCOM site?James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-65861242760638955012013-08-02T19:19:29.046-07:002013-08-02T19:19:29.046-07:00James, so far as I'm aware, the assets of Bett...James, so far as I'm aware, the assets of BetterGEDCOM are part of FHISO. It is not operating separately at this point.<br /><br />Drew Smith<br />FHISO ChairDrew Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12537180168534039546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-85084855887915406692013-08-01T22:37:56.781-07:002013-08-01T22:37:56.781-07:00James,
You're picking on the way PAF exports ...James,<br /><br />You're picking on the way PAF exports GEDCOM incorrectly. If FamilySearch hadn't stopped developing PAF so many years ago, they likely would have fixed those problems by now.<br /><br />You are correct about your "Fat Man's Pass" problem. If one program doesn't have a field that another has, then there is no way the data can be loaded correctly. The solution to this in a new GEDCOM standard is to require that a program must retain any data it does not use in its original form. Then, on export, it can pass the data back out in standard format. This way, programs can work with just the data they understand, and no data is lost.<br /><br />Louis<br /> Louis Kesslerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11704667321407909489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-57503403965982102942013-08-01T16:18:19.284-07:002013-08-01T16:18:19.284-07:00It is a quandary and there seems to be little move...It is a quandary and there seems to be little movement towards a community wide solution.James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-20259665822872900812013-08-01T16:17:13.355-07:002013-08-01T16:17:13.355-07:00It appears that the emphasis of GEDCOM X is the AP...It appears that the emphasis of GEDCOM X is the APIs rather than fixing a data export program. This brings up another point as to whether the local computer-based programs will survive competition with the online family tree/local programs.James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-80838737408040850232013-08-01T16:14:21.532-07:002013-08-01T16:14:21.532-07:00It is not clear from BetterGEDCOMs wiki site, whet...It is not clear from BetterGEDCOMs wiki site, whether or not they are still operating as a separate entity or not. Maybe you know the answer. James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-45158899012490377652013-08-01T16:12:01.672-07:002013-08-01T16:12:01.672-07:00The GEDCOM X project is developed and maintained a...The GEDCOM X project is developed and maintained at Github, which allows participation and collaboration. Yes, it is sponsored by FamilySearch, just as GEDCOM was originally. James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-82392265916069183172013-08-01T15:40:58.896-07:002013-08-01T15:40:58.896-07:00so what's the solution ... GEDCOM doesn't ...so what's the solution ... GEDCOM doesn't work anymore and no progress from the three groups working to replace GEDCOM. Sounds like a quandary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-18837994699085481712013-08-01T14:05:45.353-07:002013-08-01T14:05:45.353-07:00A complex dilemma, to be sure. I've worked in...A complex dilemma, to be sure. I've worked in developing formal technical standards for years and if the FHISO could take the lead and work to create an American National Standard that may help. Unfortunately, standards development is usually voluntary as it has to be done cooperatively and the final standards are public, which leads corporations to avoid them.Bonniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06494190967174359622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-53955082412003792482013-08-01T12:20:35.558-07:002013-08-01T12:20:35.558-07:00The problem might be divided into two main areas h...The problem might be divided into two main areas here James.<br /><br />The first is that the genealogical data model described by a GEDCOM file is not adequate for many uses. It is acknowledged to be biased towards biological lineage and has rather limited concepts regarding personal relationships. If you want to represent generalised family history, or put greater emphasis on places, then it cannot cope. A better model may get resistance, though, from vendors who feel that it will require more investment, or from ones who feel that it gives users more freedom to move away from their own product. GEDCOM, as it stands, is a "throttled" exchange mechanism.<br /><br />The second is the possibility that the existing GEDCOM standard could be "fixed" - meaning that the portability issues are addressed by getting vendors around a table to iron them out, and interpretational issues addressed by having a proper written and supported standard for it, both of these without unduly increasing the scope of the representation. I personally believe this would be popular with both vendors and end-users. GEDCOM isn't great but it's currently the best we have. Unfortunately, it quite doesn't work - as you rightly point out. There is no written standard, and the format was abandoned a long time ago. The obstacle to progress here would be the proprietary IP attached to the name.Tony Proctorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330460400737261264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-87205050704538557232013-08-01T10:04:24.237-07:002013-08-01T10:04:24.237-07:00A quick point of clarity: FHISO was formed out of ...A quick point of clarity: FHISO was formed out of the BetterGEDCOM initiative (as explained at http://bettergedcom.wikispaces.com/) so there are only two organisations not three.ColeValleyGirlhttp://www.genquiry.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-6074994036064269532013-08-01T09:16:22.803-07:002013-08-01T09:16:22.803-07:00James, can you say why you call GEDCOM X one of th...James, can you say why you call GEDCOM X one of three organizations working toward a "workable way to share and transfer files"?<br /><br />GEDCOM X is a program (or nexus of related programs) owned by and/or developed for FamilySearch. It is not a GEDCOM-based program, despite its name.<br /><br />See, for example,<br /><br />http://www.tamurajones.net/GEDCOMX1.0.0M1.xhtml<br />Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.com